Gleision Colliery accident 15/09/2011· Page 4

Mine exploration, photographs and mining history for mine explorers, industrial archaeologists, researchers and historians

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

Ty Gwyn
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#61

To be honest Pete,if you read the court articles and look at the underground plans shown on the Southwales-eveningpost.co.uk website,posted from the Court Trial most day`s,it has already been reported what should have been done,which was`nt,in-fact all safety rules were broken,and common sense went out the window.
The manager did state yesterday that he had been in the roadway that was knocked through to,and there was no water,and that the plans were wrong,
The point of fact is,were the plans wrong or were his bearings wrong?

PeteJ
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#62

OK

Accepted! Just trying to protect us all from unexpected consequences of written comments.

Pete Jackson
Frosterley
01388527532

Graigfawr
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#63

"PeteJ" wrote:
Might it be wise to cut the opinion comments until after investigations are finished?.........

Just for information: the investigations have long been complete and the mine was sealed at their conclusion many months ago.

Aditaddict
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#64

"PeteJ" wrote:
OK

Accepted! Just trying to protect us all from unexpected consequences of written comments.

agree

Ty Gwyn
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#65

What consequences? its all on the internet and local newspapers,

Here`s 2 plans showing the breach,different from the first Colliery plan that was first published with the managers pencil drawings on it,
Note the 3rd road above the breach connects to the East workings full of water,
Note in the article where the manager states he checked the other side of the breach and there was no water and that the plans were incorrect,
650,000 gallons of water does not appear over night,and also show`s an inspection of the other side did note take place before firing the shot hole`s,especially when water ran through them previously.
Here`s the plan`s,

http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Gleision-trial-Manager-describes-moving-escaped/story-21119990-detail/story.html

Vanoord
54.4% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#66

From the BBC:

Quote:

The manager and owners of a Swansea Valley mine where four miners died have been cleared of manslaughter.

Charles Breslin, 62, David Powell, 50, Philip Hill, 44, and Garry Jenkins, 39, drowned in 2011 when 650,000 gallons of water flooded the Gleision drift mine following a controlled explosion.

Manager Malcolm Fyfield, 58, and mine owners MNS Mining had denied manslaughter through gross negligence.

Key to the case was whether Mr Fyfield inspected the mine as he said he did.

Hello again darkness, my old friend...

Ty Gwyn
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#67

A total travesty of justice,
The 1979 legislation on PAI was ignored,
The cross examination of the manager`s examination of the old working`s prior to firing was totally inadequate,he stated he walked to the end of the road and could`nt go further,but the point of inrush was 50yds from this point,behind the back wall of the stall going off the so called checked road,surely this was a point that needed clarifying.
The prosecution done a very poor job of explaining what happened to the jury,
The defence excelled in covering the facts,and moving blame.

Sad affair indeed.

Aditaddict
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#68

Who are we to judge ?
i wasn't there , therefore i dont know

miner1985
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#69

"Aditaddict" wrote:
Who are we to judge ?
i wasn't there , therefore i dont know

For any coal miners on here - its plain to see. Travesty!!!

Trewillan
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#70

"miner1985" wrote:

"Aditaddict" wrote:
Who are we to judge ?
i wasn't there , therefore i dont know

For any coal miners on here - its plain to see. Travesty!!!

Could you explain why its a "travesty". Legal process has been followed, Jury have made a decision, manager is not guilty of manslaughter.

Peter Burgess
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#71

For a criminal conviction, there has to be no reasonable doubt of guilt. This was not a civil action. Justice has been done whether some like it or not. There are no better alternatives that I am aware of.

Mr.C
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#72

When the people passing judgment are not in a position to understand the evidence & it's implications........

We inhabit an island made of coal, surrounded by a sea full of fish. How can we go wrong.......

Ty Gwyn
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#73

With all due respect,for any of you mine explorer`s that can actually read a mine plan,there should be no doubt where the water came from,the Central and Eastern working`s were connected.
The CPS were totally incompetent in their prosecution in portraying the true fact`s to the jury.
If anyone read the manager`s cross examination where he said he had checked the central workings the day before ,that he walked to the bottom of the road,when asked was he sure he had checked the right road,he said Yes,there was no where else to go,i went to the end,
The inrush did not occur in this road,it was 50yds toward`s the Eastern workings,if the inrush had occurred in the checked road,the manager would not have escaped,
But the CPS never picked up on these points,they were just not clued up enough,hence the poor view portrayed to the jury.

staffordshirechina
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#74

Trying to explain technical things to non-technical people will always be a problem.
However, in this case, the manager was found not guilty of gross negligence. That means he didn't do it deliberately, he was just not up to the job, he thought he was doing the right thing. Which perhaps if you look at the matter from the strictly legal point of view is how that result happens?
It will be interesting to see if someone starts civil proceedings now this case is finished.

Aditaddict
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#75

The CPS can draw on endless lists of experts to make sure they secure a conviction
Some of the comments on here are bordering on libelus and slanderous
and people should be careful

sinker
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#76

"Aditaddict" wrote:
The CPS can draw on endless lists of experts to make sure they secure a conviction
Some of the comments on here are bordering on libelus and slanderous
and people should be careful

They are just comments and opinions, mostly by people who know what they are talking about. Staffordshirechina summed it up perfectly. He's probably correct in thinking that some sort of civil action will follow though....sign of the times 😞

Yma O Hyd....

Ty Gwyn
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#77

"Aditaddict" wrote:
The CPS can draw on endless lists of experts to make sure they secure a conviction
Some of the comments on here are bordering on libelus and slanderous
and people should be careful

If your comment is aimed at myself,i stand by every word i have said,the CPS were clueless,and Yes they could have drawn on other witnesses,
Why did`nt they?
The photo`s that were released during the trial have now been taken down,the one that showed the break of the inrush,showed a pack and face post`s that had clearly been under water for some time,Not just overnight,
The plan`s showed connection`s to the Eastern working`s that had been abandoned since 2003,a lot of water makes in 8yrs,especially in the Rhondda No.2,that`s where 650,000 gallons of water came from,not from a 1907 Colliery below like that expert witness geologist Cobb stated.

The CPS were not clued up on any of this,one would have thought they would have been briefed on Mining matters before setting foot in court,
All this court case has produced is a massive bill to the taxpayer.

miner1985
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#78

And if it was aimed at me I stand by what I posted. I called it a travesty because as an ex coal miner and having seen the plans you want me and Ty Gwyn (also an ex coal miner) to believe that that water appeared overnight!!!!
I feel for the families they still are in limbo and I don't mean convicting anyone just that they still do not have a 100% explanation of what happened

agricola
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#79

Coal and hard rock miners might not agree on a lot of subjects, but I and my colleague who's Chief surveyor agree totally with our ex-colliery correspondants and we couldn't not believe what we were reading. In one stroke mining feels a lot more dangerous with the judgment of the jury. Without reading further, how could an inrush happen without a buld up of water or gas and likemhas been said, that amount does not appear overnight. What happened to the PAIR regulations and the cautionary zones etc. I'll be asking the HM Inspector when we next have a visit on his thoughts... Something does not feel right here... I can't wait to read the HMI report.

If it can't be grown it has to be mined.

rufenig
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

11 years ago

#80

I think that you are all missing an important point here! :smartass:

The result from the court comes from the Judges guidance to the jury.
He directed the jury JUST to rule "if the manager lied about making an inspection."

He did NOT set any conditions about the quality of the inspection. ALL the technical details were set aside as the Judge instructed the jury very specificaly on what to consider.
My feeling on reading his summing up was that he instructed the jury to return a finding of not guilty without actually saying those words.

Like others I would like to see the Mine Inspetors report on the events.